These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Utility of automated template matching for the interpretation of pace mapping in patients ablated due to outflow tract ventricular arrhythmias.
    Author: Kuteszko R, Pytkowski M, Farkowski MM, Maciag A, Sterlinski M, Jankowska A, Kowalik I, Zajac D, Firek B, Demkow M, Szwed H.
    Journal: Europace; 2015 Sep; 17(9):1428-34. PubMed ID: 25736562.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: One of the disadvantages of classic pace mapping (PM) is the operator's subjective interpretation. The aim of this single-centre retrospective study was to evaluate the value of automated template matching (AMT) in patients ablated due to ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias (OTAs). METHODS AND RESULTS: From an overall group of 105 patients with OTA who were scheduled for transcatheter ablation (TA), AMT was accessible in 42 patients [21 right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), 21 left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), 28 women, aged 51.5 ± 12.7 years]. We used AMT to compare spontaneous arrhythmia ORS (spontQRS) with paced QRS complexes during PM in sites where radiofrequency (RF) applications were successful and in sites where RF applications were unsuccessful. The concordance was presented in per cents as objective matching scores (OMS). Then, at the successful ablation sites, we examined the relationship between OMS and the visual interpretation of PM was presented as electrophysiologists matching scores (EMS). The OMS of PM at sites of successful ablation varied from 78 to 99% (mean 94.1 ± 3.8) and from 47 to 95% (mean 80.2 ± 12.6%) at sites of unsuccessful ablation. Pace mapping in unsuccessful RF sites was significantly less similar to spontQRS morphologies than in successful RF sites (P = 0.0001). There was a significant correlation between OMS and EMS (r = 0.82; P < 0.0001). The OMS that indicated optimal ablation site was 89% (sensitivity = 95%; specificity = 80%). The mean OMS for successful sites at RVOT (95.1 ± 1.8%) and LVOT (93.1 ± 4.9%) were not different (P = 0.0551). CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed that AMT is a valuable technique for the interpretation of PM and for the identification of successful ablation sites in OTA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]